Letters: electricty, teachers, NFL bounties

Poor decisions on electricity issues

The San Onofre nuclear power generating plant, with its 2,200-megawatt capacity, has been shut down indefinitely because of possible radiation leaks and unexplained corrosion. California Independent System Operator, responsible for monitoring California’s electrical power distribution network, is making preparations for the shortfall from the San Onofre shutdown to possibly extend through the summer, a peak usage period. We are being warned that electricity supplies during the summer will be strained and that blackouts are possible (“A summer without San Onofre is possible,” March 23).

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

And none of us will forget Sept. 8, 2011, when the entire region was plunged into a blackout because of catastrophic unforeseen electricity distribution problems. Standby for more of that.

In light of the above, I have to wonder about the recent closure of the South Bay Power Plant. Could we now make use its 706 megawatts of generating capacity?

The South Bay Power Plant was shut down primarily to pave the way for redevelopment of the “Chula Vista Bayfront," a politically driven pipe dream that has been plagued by mismanagement from the beginning, is stalled indefinitely, and probably won’t happen in any of our lifetimes, if it happens at all.

Closing large-capacity electricity-generating plants before we have an assured supply from other sources is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse and speaks volumes about the poor judgment and lack of foresight of the decision-makers. – Charles Furr, Chula Vista

What would it take to get the San Onofre nuclear station shut down permanently? That nuclear station never should have been built there. – Marie Schmitz, La Mesa

Teachers undervalued

“Tax hike would sustain failed status quo” (Editorial, March 19) lists three ways it would be “horrible public policy,” including lavish pensions and, of course, “union clout,” whose “number one priority is preserving public employees’ jobs, pay and benefits.” Just what the unions’ priorities should be isn’t quite clear, but your suggestion seems to be that public employees, especially teachers, work longer, harder and for less pay so that our wealthiest citizens never pay any increased taxes.

Not too long ago, California’s K-12 public schools ranked among the top in the nation. Today, they’re near the bottom. If you look around our nation and the rest of the world, those local and national governments that prioritize superior education, as well as other public employee functions, outperform our state and nation in those critical areas. True, we still have the majority of the world’s great universities, but their largest single group of American graduates seek a future in finance, whereas those other nations turn them toward teaching by limiting that profession to the best and brightest and offer them the prestige – and pay – they deserve.

If our nation’s future lies with our children and grandchildren, we certainly won’t show that by what we’d do if we follow your prescription. Rather, we’d ask our public employees to forego a middle-class economic life with, incidentally, their need to also pay higher taxes so that the rich may get ever richer.